From: Frank Cecrle, South Bend, IN
There are several puzzling facts
that the film "United 93" does not even attempt to address. The first is the
fact that Flight 93 left a debris trail extending over 8 miles long. This is not
consistent with a plane "brought down" by passengers within -- but it IS
consistent with a plane that was shot down.
Several witnesses reported
seeing a military plane trailing United 93 shortly before the crash (consistent
with the U.S. F-16 interceptor jets used to prevent this exact type of
situation). Human remains of the passengers ended up MILES from Flight
93's
crash site. Official sources tried to claim these things occurred since it was a
windy day, and that debris might have been scattered by this wind -- but a
published photo of the final impact site clearly show a tall column of smoke
rising from the
wreckage straight into the air, an obvious refutation of the
claim that there was enough wind that day to drag heavy debris and human
remains.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/flight_93_depressurisation.html
What
do I take all of this to mean? I think the best explanation of these facts is
that a military jet, probably an F-16 interceptor, tailed Flight 93 that day and
shot it down before it could reach its intended destination. (Donald Rumsfeld,
in Dec. of 2004, appears to have mixed up his lies when he referred to the jet
above Pennsylvania as being "shot down.") If the U.S. government admitted to
this, however, they would have to explain why F-16s weren't successfully
scrambled in the same manner for those airliners that crashed into the Twin
Towers and the Pentagon -- the lie that is 9-11 would begin to
unravel.
We are the world's foremost military power, with billions spent
on fast, stealthy aircraft, yet we can't even protect our own airspace from
blatant hijackings, within HOURS of the alert?! This is preposterous. Several
years ago that golfer, I forget his name, passed out in his little Cessna
aircraft and began to go off of his flight course. Within MINUTES, military jets
were scrambled and tailing the tiny aircraft. Yet we're expected to believe that
4 separate, hijacked AIRLINERS didn't evoke the same response from our
military?!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/911stand.html
The Bush
administration has been caught lying when they tried to claim that the notion of
hijacked jets used as weapons had never occurred to them --
internal
documents show that this idea had indeed been considered in military
simulations in the recent past.
I don't know how much about the 9-11
Truth Movement you've looked into, and if you haven't heard many of its
arguments, I know that I might sound like a "nut" or a "kook" to you. Yet I know
that you're an intelligent man with an open mind, and that you just might take
the time to sift through the facts in search of the truth. (You gave "JFK"
a good review, and didn't dismiss it as the work of a crank or
loony!).
http://www.911proof.com
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org
I believe that
Bush's neo-cons ALLOWED 9-11 to occur (at least allowed, perhaps helped or even
designed), in order to justify wars aimed at dominating the Middle East and to
squelch domestic dissent here at home. The global capital that these
power-players stood to acquire must have FAR outweighed the American lives they
were willing to sacrifice. The neo-cons' "Project for a New American Century"
basically comes out and admits these things.
They probably allowed jets
to hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon for the PR spectacle it would create
(also suspicious is the fact that the Pentagon was hit on the one side that had
received extra structural reinformcement, a 1 out of 5 chance, and the fact that
most of the Pentagon workers in that section didn't have to report to work there
on that day). But they didn't want the White House to be hit since it would make
the U.S. government appear too vulnerable -- a jet hitting the Pentagon didn't
do much damage, but a jet hitting the White House would have demolished it. So
they probably allowed some military pilot to go ahead and shoot down Flight 93
before it could get to the White House. They gave us hyped up, "heroic" stories
about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch, and BOTH turned out to be false, blatant PR
stunts designed to rally positive war sentiment at home. I see the "let's roll"
aspect of Flight 93 to be a similar ploy.
I think a film like "United 93"
is intended to keep the wool firmly pulled down over our eyes, to make us feel
like we KNOW what happened on 9-11, so that we won't bother to look into other
accounts. It might be a good film, but it is most likely FICTION, not fact. I
pray that intelligent, influential men like yourself will look into these
strange facts before America is lost down the road of lies forever.